Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

One of the other gentlemen on the board posed the question " how many 159s or 39NG's? And I reckon 12. Site six based in Baldonnel and six on a modest new base on one of the Aran Islands. I'm thinking about the range issue here and slightly copying the idea the Chinese have come up with in the South China Sea. It would extend the area of influence and it wouldn't cost a whole pile of money to put in a shortish asphalt runway and half a dozen shelters along with a modest crew HQ and a tank of Jet A. These aircraft along with the new incoming CASA's, would constitute the Coastal Defence Command. Always supported by a number of patrolling NS vessels and able to call up assistance fron Baldonnel if things get a bit lively. The coastal defence elements would all carry forward the established blue colour scheme for camouflage purposes over sea. The remaining six could be based at Baldonnel for the defence of the capital and would mainly be occupied in the Close Air Support role and routine air policing and ceremonial tasks and enforcing an air exclusion zone. Suggest a classic brown and green camouflage and close integration with the Pilatus PC12 and PC9 assets as well as the versatile AW139's, and future potential assets in the form of the Eithne replacement with the desired pair of light attack helicopters. Gives you a fair bit of bang for your buck and extends the capabilities the AC can bring to the table, plus... given the size of the country, both the Eastern and Western air groups can interchange roles a bit and theres enought capacity to ensure the rest of the country (the South) is regularly patrolled. Not sure where to put the new Radar though! The Curragh maybe?

sparky42 wrote: »

Cause that has worked out so well giving CHC the coastguard duty... If we had spent what we have spent on that contract within the AC it would be a totally different animal, but somehow it’s better giving it to an international company...

And what exactly are they not doing so well???

I assume it's a "just pay it " type of thing for the government ... There's an annual ongoing cost ... And thats it ...
No extra training school needed for the pilots , no political shenanigans over basing the Helo in this or that constituency....
No teams of civil servants in the DoD being at odds with the military ...

sparky42 wrote: »

Helicopters whose downdraft has caused issues for rescues and the RNLI according to some RNLI members I know, not too mention the cost, or the top cover issue. Want to bet what they charge us for the new contract?

Maybe it might just be easier to get DOD to let the AC have more chances at joint ops like the ones they refused over the years?

Pile of rubbish. They are doing a great job and as soon as there is an emergency they are there, and what helicopters dont cause a downdraft??

Its seems like you are nitpicking really. The Air Corpse was supposed to provide top cover when needed, but they cant even do that right. They are a complete waste of money. If they were worth the investment, pilots wouldn't be leaving them in droves to work with companies like CHC helicopters.

sparky42 wrote: »

All I'm going with is feedback from active RNLI members who served during both airframes in use.


The AC isn't supposed to provide Top Cover, they aren't under any obligation to do so in the tender that CHC signed up to, and literally couldn't that period with neither of the 235's flying (due to the age and lack of replacement again due to Government policy not AC action). And yeah pilots are leaving just like every other section of the DF, you want to dismantle all of it?


The AC can only do what it's allowed/funded to do by Government, it's not their fault that Bertie ultimately decided to go with civilian helicopters that can never be used out of the nation, nor their fault that the DOD has literally stepped in to stop them doing joint training.

Like every other government agency in this country the DF is half arsed, but at least the Navy and Army have a defined mission. Air ambulance? Surely that could be done by a private firm.

Really and truly the Air Corpse should be part of the army and called the army air corps. Navy should be disbanded and called the coast guard because thats basically what it is anyway, and put in charge of maritime patrol which could also provide top cover for the rescue helis.

But these things will never happen because people like you are stuck in the 1950's and will object to every new idea going.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you calling them the Air Corpse in an attempt at humour?

Do I seem like I am making an attempt at humor?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so just an inability to call them by their correct name then.

Did I hurt your feelings?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no i just think it is kinda pathetic that you have so much to say about what the Air Corps do and you cant even be bothered to find out what they are actually called. Just an observation. carry on.

Triggered

Now thats pathetic.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody triggered here. I think it just shows your level of knowledge.

Shows nothing except someone that is pissed off with the way the DF have turned out over the years. Get over it, and learn to spell.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not the one who can't spell Corps.

Again, get over it :P

It Corpse

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I agree that the current ASW framework is flawed, and I suspect considerable change is on the table in the near future, but downdraft from any ASW helicopter will be an issue. The S92 downdraft can't be much different from the old S61, which was of course significant in hover given the physics of keeping something that big up, and comparing with the smaller old AC helicopters less suited to ASW is specious.

They were comparing it to the S61's not the smaller AC ones, but as I've said that's just what I've been told, having said that the 92's are a fair bit heavier than the older 61's so I'd have assumed the downdraft would be increased to hold them in hover.

This is never going to happen, the costs involved are just too high. Remember how rapidly the government dumped the Gulfstream rather than pay the landing gear overhaul costs and these are minuscule compared to combat aircraft.

sparky42 wrote: »

Cause that has worked out so well giving CHC the coastguard duty... If we had spent what we have spent on that contract within the AC it would be a totally different animal, but somehow it’s better giving it to an international company...

Im sure the hundreds of Islanders & Merchant Navy people that they go out in all weathers to rescue would not agree with you there.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The S92 downdraft can't be much different from the old S61

The S92 downwash is the equivalent to a hurricane. Also the S61N needed more power, the S92 can happily land on a pad using 30% power where as the S61N needed 70% plus.

Steyr 556 wrote: »

I know this is in relation to Ireland joining PESCO, but I think it is an indicator at least of what FG have planned for future military spending -

"Taoiseach Leo Varadkar wanted to allay fears that PESCO membership meant Ireland would be purchasing significant military hardware.

He said: "We are not going to be buying aircraft carriers; we are not going to be buying fighter jets; and we are not going to be shopping around military trade fairs."

From this.

Of course FG and Varadker will probably have to go into coalition with FF or others and the plan may change.

I'm not sure why you think it's relevant, both FG and FF published their menifesto's for the election that puts forward what they planned for defence. That was more to stop the claims that we were suddenly going to start spending X billions on defence due to PESCO.